Or, CT, 7:52-8:15 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLSv-tdR7w

She's mischaracterised what he said, but the SJW/modern feminist movement is viciously powerful at the moment, so her actions will be applauded. Things are changing. Linus had to exile himself and come back 'improved', Stallman has been ousted. I wouldn't like to guess where this is going.

Bullseye, very convenient indeed!

They are all still driving their expensive cars, flying on their private jets, receiving praise for their benevolence done in public, and enjoying the unrestrained perks of life on their private islands and their positions they assume to be beyond reach of all personal accountability.

Epstein was removed from his position when he became too visible and dangerous for those who wished to continue perpetrating unseen in that realm.

Now Stallman has been removed from his position because of his visibility and unwavering message of personal information freedom which has long hindered the perpetrating designs of others in this realm.

Free Software, as Freedom itself is as dead as truth in our current societies, as evidenced by both these cases and the daily dishing of new-speak/double-think "journalism". The new owners are simply rearranging the office furnishings and staff to suit their needs.

Freedom has no meaning apart from Truth.

Good riddance!

I think the thing that really sank him was his statements about pedophilia being okay. That tends to draw fire from both Left and Right (anyone remember Milo Yiannopoulos?). He seems to have moved away from that position, but it may be too late...


https://stallman.org/archives/2019-j...child_is_wrong)

Ironically Boston had a parade for Yiannopoulos last month, just across the river from MIT.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/milo-yian...t-pride-parade

Who?

Since so many are resorting to thrashing Stallmans legacy/contributions, here is a good article to keep things in perspective: http://techrights.org/2019/09/06/rms-track-record/

She wasn't a journalist but an engineer with a friend on the mailing list. I agreed with her that "harem" was questionable word choice and tried to be sympathetic to the idea that it's difficult for women in tech, them being still very much in the minority. The rest of her thoughts I disagreed with.

I thought rms's emails were harmless and her bringing this out along with shoddy reporting along with herd mentality from prominent free software orgs (Software Freedom Conservancy and Gnome Foundation) and activists made it hurtful to him. Who was actually harmed by his statements. I don't know how he's taking it, but I presume that not getting to lead the movement he started and having people like those at SFC or Gnome Foundation denounce him must be quite hurtful to him. These are people he knows, yes, the potential inheritors of his movement?

The only defense I can think of for their statements is that there's worse behaviour from him than we've heard these people know personally that they've not made public and don't intend to, perhaps having qualms of damaging him too much. If it's just these statements that's the issue then to hell with them, I won't donate again. The movement is a pipedream, if one must be honest, at least in its broader aims beyond what we have now (which is a lot and I give rms a good deal of credit for that), so I count a personal betrayal and the pain caused as far outweighing their claims they must protect the movement from him (that is unless there are serious harassment issues they're keeping to themselves). Perhaps it's perverse, but even if the future movement were more than a fart in a mitt on a world scale, I still can't ignore the personal over the greater good. It matters how you treat your friends at times like these.

I'll donate to the FSF, but I'm done with the SFC until someone, in his or her own name and at length, writes something to help me to understand where they are coming from, something beyond a [removed] org press release. I'm also impatient to see someone prominent write anything in his defense publicly as opposed to commenting on hackernews or slashdot, maybe someone like Gerry Sussman, Eben Moben, Lawrence Lessig, (though perhaps he's justified in staying quiet at this point), etc., someone who's a friend or who has sung his praises in the past.

kook? robot" probably very transactional? can't get the big picture?

I mean, let alone psychologically, it should be apparent that children are harmed physiologically too, and that probably includes in non pen sex with a minor.

OK

thirdm, I'm glad you brought up SFC: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/...-speak-for-us/

It does make one wonder which of the "anonymous cowards", as in former allies, friends and associates of Stallman wrote this.

Again the ideologues at FSF, GNU, et al are showing time and again that they are the architects of their own destruction. They value their corporate donors, good PR and cushy positions and career prospects over their supposed principles and I wonder if they sleep sound knowing that they have "followed the crowd" and thrown Stallman under the bus.

The Gnome Foundation position was that either Stallman went or they were going to "sever ties" with GNU/FSF. That's entirely expected of an org which is in the pockets of corporations.

That should come as no surprise. In the middle of a Stallman interview years ago with Jupiter Broadcasting (in the middle of the video actually, but I believe after he hung up) Lunduke himself made an issue of such comments which I don't believe were part of the interview itself. He brought them up purely as an ad hom response to other unrelated remarks.

It was just an effort to show that he was an awful guy that doesn't deserve to talk about ethical issues. I've had a low opinion of Lunduke ever since, though I don't necessarily think he's quite as bad now.

I believe there is evidence or proof that Kuhn wrote it, but the only person I know claiming it is Schestowitz.

Thanks! I'm the author of that.

Good article, this one was enjoyable too:

http://techrights.org/2019/09/16/stallman-removed/

And I ended up reading this as a result of your article:

Microsoft Linux Conference Announced, Takes Place Next March

Microsoft Linux, eh. Get used to hearing that phrase.

Judging from some of the comments on that OMG Ubuntu piece, a lot of people are either in denial about what's actually happening or they are just incapable of seeing what's right in front of their faces.

Slightly off-topic, but I remember a screenshot a few years ago of a large PC retailer's site offering boxes pre-loaded with "Microsoft Ubuntu". Maybe it was just ahead of its time.

If MS wants to turn itself around and become a useful and half-decent company I'm all for it, but for now I'll put "Microsoft Linux" next to "Microsoft Works" in the box marked "Oxymorons".

It reads like people who are paid to post on social media and shape public perception.

Flat Earth is silly, but would be less so if a multinational mining corporation had leaked internal memos, with verified authenticity, explaining their tactics and motivations about fighting against people learning the earth was flat by use of proxies and shills.

For EEE, we have that. It was originally called "de-commoditised protocols."

https://opensource.org/node/399

The problem with proving that EEE can be applied to free software is that "you can fix anything wrong with free software."

But that's like saying allergies "aren't a problem" because you can edit your DNA. They're a problem, until you solve it. Having the source code and a free license certainly helps a lot, but it's only part of the battle. If people keep sabotaging mainstream projects to the point of overworking people like the Devuan team, then EEE happens.

I've spent 5 years arguing that you can create freedom-limiting "lock-in" even with free software (it's a lot harder to do with free software) but that's alright-- one time it took me closer to 10 years to prove a certain point about software.

I've made progress with this argument even with the FSF. I'm still trying to get someone important there to come up with a name for this. Naming a problem doesn't solve it, but it's a great first step.

Microsoft knows (and says) that EEE is real. But they would rather you think they've changed, when the evidence they haven't continues to increase.